Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lemur/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:01, 18 May 2010.

Lemur

 * Nominator(s): –  VisionHolder  « talk »  17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA qualifications in its current state. I said I wasn't going to run this article through FAC until several other supporting articles were written, but Ucucha suggested that there was no reason not to. Lemur evolutionary history—one of these supporting articles—has just passed FAC. Admittedly, each section is not fully "comprehensive", but that is because these supporting articles will contain the more detailed content. Already the article is quite lengthy, and for a general overview of lemurs, I feel it is comprehensive enough. If further condensing is needed on this article, I feel it will be more obvious once the summary articles are finished. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support—I thoroughly reviewed this article during the GAN and think it meets all FA criteria. It may indeed be too comprehensive, at nearly 13000 words. (No dab links or dead external links.) Ucucha 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redlinks in general are not a problem, but there are a few instances in this article where, as a layperson, I can't figure out what the sentence means because the redlink isn't stubbed or the term isn't defined. Samples:
 * ... lemurs exhibit low visual acuity and high retinal summation.
 * ... Used together with the toothcomb on the mandible (lower jaw), this complex is reminiscent of an ungulate browsing pad.
 * In those cases where a redlinked article is necessary to understand this article, could you either stub the redlink, or do some de-jargonification here for us bio dummies? And I'm completely confused about what the "Chapter" subheadings refer to in Books cited.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good points. I was aware of those redlinks when I wrote the article, but had nearly forgotten about them.  To be honest with you, these terms suffer from two separate problems.  In the case of retinal summation, I have yet to see a simple layman's translation in the literature, and it would take a bit of work to even find the technical definition.  I'll see what I can do, but I know the definition involves detailed anatomy of the eye and skull, as well as a more detailed understanding of visual acuity.  In short, it's not a simple term that can be summarized in the article.  Browsing pad, on the other hand, is one of those terms that is understood by people who work with exotic animals, particularly hoofstock.  It's a special adaptation that involves the upper dentition that makes it easier to grasp and feed on plant material.  Like "retinal summation", the information appears to be completely absent from the web.  Sometime tomorrow, when I have less alcohol in my system, I will try to comb my animal encyclopedias where hope that I find something.  However, this may be a specialty term for a more technical term, so I'm not sure what I'll find, if anything.  As always, both terms can be chalked up as cases of poor coverage of basic biology and detailed animal anatomy on Wikipedia.  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  06:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And to show I'm not crazy, "browsing pad"—the most obscure term—is legit: see here –  VisionHolder  « talk »  06:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, VH; stubbing those when you can get to it might be helpful. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stubs created. Hopefully that helps. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  01:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Even better news—I got a professor in biomedical sciences to take a photo of the dental pad and release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0. It's not on the Lemur article, but if people follow the (now functional) link, they can see what a "browsing pad" or "dental pad" is.  –   VisionHolder  «  talk  »  03:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and notes
 * General note - congratulations to the editors for an incredibly well-written and detailed article.
 * Proofreading done - spotted one spectacularly minor copyedit to make, which is amazing for such a long article. However, I cannot claim to know how any of the many technical words should properly be spelled :o)
 * Prose style / readability - Boy! I found this tough going at first; I have no interest in natural science so I found myself plodding heavily to begin with. However, it became easier as things went on. And I recognise that a great effort has been made to explain/link all the many technical terms. I also note that the vocabulary used (outside of the technical terminology) is top notch. This makes it a somewhat adult read; it might be alienating to pre-university/college students. But I'm not in favour of dumbing down on that basis. It would be great if the main contributors to the article would consider doing an article for the Simple Language Wikpedia (it would only have to be a fraction of the length of this one) and then to link to it from this great article. One thing I look out for in the prose is whether an article sounds like it was cobbled together by various authors and jars at points because of that; I didn't find that at all with this article, it all fits together as if the work of one author, which is splendid. Didn't notice any sentences that clanged, banged or bemused me (again, that's technical terms aside).
 * I'm glad to hear that once you made your way into the article, everything made sense and the flowed well. The article was constructed over an 8-month stretch from scratch.  The only major edits have come from Ucucha, who gave it a very thorough GA review.  Yes, I plan to write a "Lemur" article on Simple Language Wikpedia someday, but my first goal is to offer everything I can about every lemur possible in complete detail here on the main Wiki. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Completeness - I can bring no prior to knowledge to this, but I was damn satiated with lemur knowledge by the time I got to the end. The only thing I was left wondering about was lemur "nests". Most of us know about birds' nests. But I was left curious about primates' nests; I would like to have a couple of sentences in the article to describe or at least a wikilink to explore that habitat further.
 * Yes, it is an interesting detail for most people, who generally only think of birds as nest-builders. I do plan to go into more detail in both an upcoming supporting article (to be named Lemur behavior) and on the respective species, genera, and family pages.  As it is, I feel the article is too long.  If everyone else is okay with it, I may wait to include that information on those pages.  In the meantime, I can tell you that small, nocturnal lemurs build nests much like a tree squirrel.


 * Possible fixes required
 * Section Anatomy & Physiology - 2nd paragraph; there's a repetition of a point about "toilet claws". I find myself ill equipped to know whether the twice-mention is serving a purpose. If not, best removed.
 * Good catch! The redundancy has been fixed. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Section Dentition - final para; the word "nonnative" is used. If that's normally the way it is written in the science literature, fine. But I would find "non-native" more friendly. I read it as "NONnertiv" at first, rather than "NON NAYtiv".
 * Fixed. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To close -
 * Thank you! –  VisionHolder  « talk »  22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * --bodnotbod (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref I don't know if this ref for the Linnean species is worth adding &mdash; &mdash;  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind adding the ref. Precisely where were you wanting it added? –   VisionHolder  « talk »  19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd put it after the sentence beginning Four years after..., but I don't mind if you don't use it at all  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. I think at some point during the GAC with Ucucha, we removed a reference to Linnaeus and replaced with the more current refs.  I don't recall the reasoning off-hand, but as it stands, the secondary source used sufficiently covers the material.  If anyone has a good reason to include the suggestion citation, I'll seriously consider adding it back in.  But at this point, the citation would be redundant, IMO.  That block of text mentions the important elements of the citation (author, title, inferred year, minus the page numbers), assisting anyone wanting to find the original source.  The citation would effectively add nothing more than the page numbers.  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments '''  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the ancestral lemur is thought to have originated in Africa approximately 62 to 65 mya, they &mdash; change of number
 * currents that were counter &mdash; ...ran counter?
 * 20 Ma &mdash; is this different from mya?
 * Excellent catches! All have been fixed.  "Ma" means "million years (annum)", whereas "mya" means "million years ago".  The usage was wrong, but is now fixed.
 * pseudo-opposable &mdash; I don't know what this means, how is it different from opposable?
 * Admittedly, this isn't defined very well on Wiki, such as on this article and Opposable thumb. Even in the literature, the term is poorly defined.  Basically it refers to a lesser degree of independence of the thumb movements, and it affects manipulative ability.  I've done my best to briefly clarify in the article. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur (Allocebus trichotis) reportedly has a very long tongue, allowing it to feed on nectar.[43] Likewise, the Red-bellied Lemur (Eulemur rubriventer) has a feathery brush-shaped tongue, also uniquely adapted to feed on nectar and pollen. &mdash; How can Red-bellied be unique if Hairy does it too?
 * The specific adaptation (the shape) is unique, not the function. That's how the sentence reads to me.  If the interpretation of the wording is too tricky, I can try to change it. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Crypsis, or the inability to visually distinguish between two or more distinct species, has recently been discovered among lemurs &mdash; reads as if the lemurs can't distinguish, I suspect that you mean humans can't tell
 * Honestly, I don't think anyone can distinguish them visually, including these animals. Either later in the article or on Lemur evolutionary history, it talks about how they use species-specific calls to distinguish proper mates.  That aside, though, I'll try to fix it. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lastly, ferns taste badly &mdash; bad or unpleasant perhaps?
 * poison ivy (Taxicodendron radicans) &mdash; might be worth mentioning that Duke is in the US, I was wondering what this plant was doing in Madagascar
 *  Greater Bamboo Lemur (Prolemur simus) do not exhibit female dominance &mdash; does not?
 * More good catches. Fixed. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sample lemur vocalizations &mdash; just a line of text, is something broken here
 * HeadBomb was trying to fix something in the Wiki-book version of the article, but the template didn't work properly. I've reverted it and plan to report the bug after I finish your list. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * have failed intelligence tests &mdash; pov/anthropomorphic scored lower?
 * Don't worry... I was just going with the source. Ring-tailed lemurs have a very special place in my heart.  I like your wording better and have change it. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Debt relief is needed to help Madagascar protect its biodiversity &mdash; pov, debt relief may help
 * Again, I was going off the source, but the change has been made. Thanks!  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I look forward to supporting soon All issues resolved, changed to support above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can get around to reviewing this article. Mostly it looks fine, but I agree that the text could be "tough going" for a lot of people. To start with, I think the lead needs some changes more than most of the text. The line on etymology is a bit much: "The name is derived from …, from which they earned their name due to …". &mdash;innotata 19:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Lemur diets are highly variable; though most species rely largely on fruits or leaves, lemurs share the forests with other lemur species with differentiated niches." can't you just say something like "most eat fruits and leaves, some are specialists"? The "lemurs share the forests with other lemur species" also sounds strange. &mdash;innotata 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. The first part of that sentence unfortunately requires close attention to the location of the semi-colon, but you're right, it's not worded well at all.  I'll probably use your suggestion.  The second part of the sentence is an example of trying to use layman's terms rather than the technical term, "sympatric".  I'm trying to find a clearer way to say it without being too wordy. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  02:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * Ref 103 lacks a page reference
 * Refs 1, 4, 67, 103 and 135 are all book references. These books are not listed in the bibliography. I understand that you may not wish to list books which are only used for a single citation, but 135 has several.
 * Ref 144: a daily newspaper has 122+ pages? (just checking).
 * Ref 145: I believe it is The Washington Post.

Otherwise, references all look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On ref. 144, I found that piece in LexisNexis, which said it was on "Pg. 122". It's also online here. Ucucha 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All the other points have been addressed. The missing page reference for former ref 103 (now 102) was due to a general reference from an expert in the field who told me the material was included in the book.  I have since bought the book and couldn't find the material, but I did find supporting material for other statements, and a page number has been added.  Otherwise, all book references have been homogenized and The Washington Post ref has been fixed. –   VisionHolder  «  talk  »  03:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was perhaps unwise to take another person's word for a citation without following it up, particularly as it seems that the expert was wrong. However, no harm done in this instance. Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually prefer to avoid such mistakes by asking for full detail. In this case, though, I don't think I would have received the information due to his busy schedule.  I am actually surprised that I did not find the information in the book—the suggestion was perfectly reasonable given the author and the history.  However, I did only skim the sections that are most likely to contain it.  The information could still be present, but I won't know until I sit down and read the whole book.  But thank you for your concern.
 * Otherwise, is there anything else the article needs? –  VisionHolder  «  talk  »  14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support nice overview, notes below are just quibbles really. Comments beginning a look-over. I'll jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Most eat fruits and leaves, while some are specialists - sounds funny (first bit should be wide variety of fruits and leaves?)


 * To communicate with smell, which is helpful at night - 'useful' at night?


 * The saltatory abilities.. why not just "Jumping prowess"?


 * I agree with your wording recommendations. All three changes have been made. –   VisionHolder  «  talk  »  16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.